posted on March 14, 2001 10:48:37 PM new
I think I will say goodnight, myself. Mzalez must be too busy looking up more graphic quotes (to educate us) to answer zazzie's very good question. I will check back in the morning to see if she answers it.
posted on March 14, 2001 10:54:41 PM new
Goodnight Hepburn.
KatyD
James, It is true that for those who are too young to have been there or maybe just not into politics at the time abortion rights must not seem the same. It was a hard fought battle. Women all across the county fought together to win the right to have an abortion in a clean and sanitary place instead of some back alley butcher shop. The Supreme Court did not just decide to make it legal out of the goodness of their hearts. Roe v Wade was not the beginning of the battle, it started way before that. It was just the decisive legal battle. It was so hard fought that those of us who were there never want to see that right reversed.
Yes, I did burn my bra!
[ edited by rawbunzel on Mar 14, 2001 11:05 PM ]
[ edited by rawbunzel on Mar 14, 2001 11:06 PM ]
posted on March 15, 2001 01:07:14 AM new
Sure glad pictures were banned.
I was getting ready to share pictures of women who died when the back-alley quacks abandened them when things went wrong. Or when women resorted to doing it themselves and they didn't do it right.
posted on March 15, 2001 01:18:35 AM new
Oh blech. Most of you women posting, the common mantra is me, me, me. My body, my choice. Half of the abortion problem would be solved if people learned that it is possible to have a few morals. How many people on this thread, and the other from a month ago posted about their "youthful indescretions?" Here is what I see you saying, "Oh, woe is me, I was too stupid to keep my pants on, got pregnant, and now have to kill the baby. I was just young dammit, and even though schools have been teaching safe sex and sex education for years and years, I was not smart enough to listen. I went through a terrible time because my mother was dying (or a hundred other excuses) and I chose to sleep around, but it wasn't my fault."
Abortion isn't going away and I can accept that, I won't accept a partial birth abortion unless it is a case of incest, rape, or the mother's life is in danger. I will do everything in my power to help make partial birth abortions illegal except for the above mentioned examples.
"At the moment, though, you hear no expression of regret from the abortion- rights people, no expressions of sorrow that, from time to time, late-term abortions need to be performed. Instead, they cheered the Supreme Court decision and talked as if late-term abortions affect only the woman--no mention of the fetus-child with the collapsed skull. They sounded like the National Rifle Association, which never met a weapon it could not love. This zealotry has endeared the NRA to many gun lovers, but it has left the rest of us wondering about its values, not to mention its sanity. It seems to cherish its supposed rights more than human life itself." from the previous article posted by mzalez.
posted on March 15, 2001 01:32:56 AM new
Perhaps mzalez' desire to "educate" could be better served to make access to early abortion easier... She could educate legislators and the public as to how this would prevent at least some of the tragedy of late-term abortions. She could educate legislators and the public about the need for easy access to contraception, and giving children a greater range of responses than "just say no", and "keeping their knees together" or "keeping it in their trousers".
I was outraged by the article posted... the attempt to paint those as pro-choice as simply begin jubilant about maintaining choice, with no regard for the reality of what we are fighting for is derogatory in extreme. I know that abortion is unpleasant, that it ends in death, and blood and gore. But I also know that the alternatives are unacceptable too - and to try to paint pro-choice as an immoral and hedonistic position is disgraceful.
I respect that those who are anti-choice hold their own beliefs for very personal reasons, and that they make sense in their view of the world. I just abhor their attempt to force their own perspective onto everyone else, without knowing the inside lives of people having to grapple with the choice to continue or end a pregnancy.
Make one point or the other. Banning guns will not stop abortions. When you present confused arguments it leaves your viewing public unable to determine that you are not confused yourself.
posted on March 15, 2001 06:29:20 AM new
Hi, I'm late arriving to this thread and only skimmed the previous 187 posts, so I apologize in advance if this has been brought up before...
If there were TRUE separation of church and state, this would not even be an issue for GW to discuss. But the fact is that even though the Constitution calls for that, it has never been so. By nature, a government HAS to intertwine the two.
Government = Law
Law = Morals
Religion = Morals
Religious Right = Moral Majority (sad but true)
Right Wing = Removal of all choice for the population via government.
For the record, I am pro choice. I do however, feel that partial birth abortions should only be used in instances where the mother's health is threatened. Not sure about in the instance of the fetus' health though.
Is it ok to abort in the third trimester just because a birth defect has been discovered? Does it depend upon whether the fetus is viable outside the womb? Do physical birth defects mean it is ok? How bad does a defect have to be before it is ok? We, as a society, want perfection. God has other plans... (reminded of that old Depeche Mode song, 'I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor..' )
My mantra is not "me me me" as previously suggested in this thread, it is and always will be:
If you choose to pray, pray for choice!
By nature, pro choicers are more tolerant, and therefore not as likely to become the rabid dogs that the anti freedom fighters are. You won't see a pro choice activist bombing a clinic that doesn't perform abortions.
This debate will rage on as long as there are men in power (church and government) who cannot and will not understand the needs of a huge segment of our society.
Just my opinion!
Edited for speeeeling!
[ edited by sugar2912 on Mar 15, 2001 07:32 AM ]
posted on March 15, 2001 06:35:06 AM new
The only time a male has a choice regarding the outcome of a pregnancy is prior to conception. If a male is interested in choice...he had best make it then, not later.
Partial birth abortions have and will continue to be used to save the life of the mother. I know of one case with a friend. There was no other life saving technique.
Mental health is a health concern, in pregnancy and always. It is not a separate or imaginary thing. It is connected and entwined with physical health.
Ethically I stand opposed to abortion. I think that Roe vs. Wade is a correct legal decision. I believe people who choose to have abortions should have proper medical care. Abortions were not "better" prior to the time they became legal. They were illegal and reputable practicioners did not perform them.
Guns and the NRA have absolutely nothing to do with abortions. Birth control does. Abstinence works, but not everyone practices it. Birth control education is essential, as is access to birth control, to lowering the abortion and unwed birth stats. Talk with your children, your friends, your neices and nephews.
In addition to the availibility of birth control, know when the varios methods require a back up. There are things that interfere with the effectiveness of the various birth control. Be willing to explain other means of sexual gratification that will avoid an unplanned pregnancy.
There are no perfect solutions to this issue...it is an imperfect world we live in.
posted on March 15, 2001 07:12:21 AM new
I haven't seen a single person who is in favour of PBA/D&X say that they wanted it for general use. I do not want this procedure used unless it is necessary, but I believe that the person who should determine its necessity is a woman's health care professional, who is familiar with the health care of that woman. I do not believe such a decision should rest with legislators, who will never be able to know the ins-and-outs of any particular scenario.
I happen to believe in the basic goodness of people, and cannot believe that any medical person would wish to subject a woman to this procedure unnecessarily, or the fetus, or the other health care workers involved in the abortion.
The medical profession has standards and protocols. If someone is working outside and against those constraints, THEY should be prosecuted/challenged/fired. It should not be made more difficult for those who truly need such an intervention just because some people behave immorally.
posted on March 15, 2001 07:43:28 AM new
Good morning all. The polite discussion is very appreciated.
The whole point is that PBA is unnecessary. The procedure is being done for elective reasons, and for other 'health' reasons that don't justify infanticide. If you need proof of that, go back and look at the earlier posts. In the meantime I'll be looking for more citations to back that up.
posted on March 15, 2001 07:54:25 AM new
I didnt see anyone bragging about their sexual experiences and then "woe is me'ing". Nobody knows what goes inside the womans head or body or the circumstances except the woman herself. To choose to abort a baby because one does not want to carry a baby and it is healthy as well as the woman, that is wrong in my opinion. To sit in judgement of what is THOUHGHT to be and dictate a religion pertaining to that decision according to whomever is writing the law and then passing it affecting the womans right to do what she thinks best or IS best for her baby or herself, that is wrong also.
posted on March 15, 2001 07:55:35 AM newmzalez, "The whole point is that PBA is unnecessary" is not completely true.
I believe it has been done unnecessarily in the past, but banning it altogether isn't the answer. A certain group of people who have different views than another group of people should not, under any circumstances, decided what is "necessary" and what is not.
I feel it should remain up to the individual and the individual's health care provider to decide what is necessary or not. I don't think they need you or your cronies telling them what choices (or lack of) they have.
posted on March 15, 2001 08:12:47 AM new
Are partial-birth abortions medically necessary to save the mother's life or protect her from injury?
"With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure's impact on a woman's cervix can put future pregnancies at risk." --Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D.
Letter to the Editor
The New York Times, September 26, 1996
"Most partial-birth abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies" and "there is no obstetrical situation that requires the willful destruction of a partially delivered baby to protect the life, health or future of a woman." --
Nancy Romer, M.D., Curtis Cook, M.D., Pamela Smith, M.D. and Joseph DeCook, M.D.
Letter to the Editor
The Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1996
What does the American Medical Association (AMA) say about partial-birth abortions?
"Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." (The AMA supported the federal ban on partial-birth abortions passed by Congress and vetoed by President Clinton.) --Daniel H. Johnson, Jr., M.D.
Letter to the Editor
The New York Times, May 26, 1997
How many partial-birth abortions are performed each year?
Since states do not have mandatory and uniform abortion reporting requirements, there is no way to know for certain how many partial-birth abortions are performed each year. Abortion supporters insist that only about 500 partial-birth abortions are performed annually. However, Martin Haskell, the abortionist who developed the procedure, reported in 1992 performing more than 700 partial-birth abortions in his abortion practice. Furthermore, according to a report in the Sunday Record (September 15, 1996), New Jersey physicians admit performing at least 1,500 partial-birth abortions a year in their state alone--that's three times the national number claimed by abortion advocates.
Why are partial-birth abortions performed?
Supporters of partial-birth abortion, including President Clinton, state that the majority of partial-birth abortions take place in cases where the fetus suffers from abnormalities or severe defects. However, abortionist Martin Haskell told American Medical News (July 5, 1993) that most of his partial-birth abortions were elective, meaning there was no medical reason for the abortion. Ohio abortionist Martin Ruddock told The Washington Post (September 17, 1996) that more than one-half of his partial birth abortions involve normal fetuses.
Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, confessed to American Medical News (March 3, 1997) that he "lied through [his] teeth" during a 1995 interview with ABC's "Nightline" when he stated that women had partial-birth abortions only in the most extreme circumstances of life endangerment or fetal anomaly. Fitzsimmons went on to say that a vast majority of these abortions are performed on healthy babies and healthy mothers.
These statements are just fascinating, but for all anyone can determine you may have made them up from whole cloth. Can you provide verifiable links to the articles referenced so that any interested person can read the entirety of the statements you've provided in full context?
Failing that, you may as well not post them for they can be taken to be simple extractions or fabrications that you are using in support of your premise.
posted on March 15, 2001 08:55:30 AM new
President Clinton vetoed the bill because it did not allow the D&X in the event that the mother's health was *seriously* threatened. Now if you tell me that it never happens, then what's the problem with having that clause in there?
Don't give me that clap-trap about people using that clause as a loophole for allowing the procedure for minor reasons. With the way the law was being discussed as being written up, that would not be a problem.
So if D&X's are never done for medical reasons, that clause will have no effect and the religious right has no reason to fight against that cluase...or do they? But then again...if D&X's are sometimes done because the doctor sees it as preferable to a hysterectomy or C-section (both major surgery) to remove a hydrocephalic infant that won't survive, then I guess that the religious right wouldn't like that for some reason.
I am pro-choice. But I don't have a problem with limiting after 24 weeks or so, the reasons why a D&X can be performed. If the baby/mother are perfectly healthy, I personally don't think a D&X should be available at that point. But I don't accept your premise that it's NEVER medically necessary. Banning is not the answer here. Making early term abortions more readily available and less harrowing to get might help, though. Somehow I can't see the religious right getting behind that one, though.
Lisa
posted on March 15, 2001 08:57:43 AM new
"At least we should be able to draw the line that when a child is in the process of being born, it's too late to have an abortion."
- Senator Rick Santorum
PRIESTS FOR LIFE BLASTS CLINTON ON VETO...
Father Frank Pavone, International Director of "Priests for Life", a network of over 40,000 Roman Catholic Priests and Deacons, blasted President Clinton today for his veto of H.R.1833, The Partial Birth Abortion Act.
"The Partial Birth Abortion procedure is one of the many proofs of how extreme the so called "pro-choice" movement is," stated Fr. Pavone. "The President's veto of the ban of this gruesome procedure not only contradicts the votes of both houses of congress and the convictions of 71% of the American people, but it proves how dangerous the "pro-choice" mentality is. Those who put choice above life at one stage will find it hard not to do the same at later stages. A threshold is crossed when one decides it is ok to kill a baby --- and no one is safe on the other side of that threshold.
In spite of testimony by medical experts to the contrary, Clinton justified his [veto of PBA Ban Act] action with the claim that this procedure affects only hundreds of people and was necessary to protect the life and health of the mother - even though the abortionists themselves admitted its use was purely elective.
----------------------------------
If you doubt the citations, go to the sources given and look them up.
The truth is that there is no reason for PBA to be performed.
posted on March 15, 2001 09:11:00 AM new
Excerpts from Martha W. Shuping, M.D. (article too long to see here, link below)
“There's a great deal the media hasn't told you about the procedure itself and the reasons it is being performed… Although the women brought forward by President Clinton to endorse this procedure stressed its safety and its necessity for health reasons, in fact it is the last thing you would think of in an emergency because it takes three days to complete. The woman's cervix must be dilated under local anesthesia for two days prior to the actual procedure, which involves a breech (feet first) delivery of the baby… One of the women brought forward by President Clinton described the procedure as "grueling." This is not something you do for the mother's health…
“…Dr. Pamela Smith, M.D., director of medical education at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Chicago, states that "the risks of maternal hemorrhage and uterine rupture," are "well-known," and "partial birth abortion is not a standard of care for anything." Dr. Waren Hern, a physician who performs late term abortions and who has written a widely used textbook on late term abortion, states, "You really can't defend it.....I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use….
“…Actually, the doctors who do the procedure admit this is not primarily for the woman's health. Dr. Martin Haskell told the American Medical News (a publication of the A.M.A.) in a tape-recorded 1993 interview, that eighty percent of them are purely elective, and about twenty percent are done for genetic reasons. In any case, none of the physicians who testified before Congress could come up with even one case in which this procedure had been done to save the life of the mother. If anyone is doing it for "health" reasons, it is likely only for depression, as it's clearly not appropriate for physical health reasons. And surely a three day abortion is the last thing that a depressed woman needs, if anyone were really thinking about what she needed. (Dr. McMahon had stated that most of the partial birth abortions he had done were "non-elective," meaning medically necessary, but then listed the necessity as being due to depression or mother's youth. He also had admitted to doing some for reasons of the baby's health, for example, nine abortions due to the baby having a cleft palate, a very correctable condition, but admitted that many of the babies were perfectly healthy)…
“…equally horrifying is the enormous deception being perpetrated on thousands of women at a very vulnerable time in their lives. Women are being subjected to a very dangerous three day abortion procedure, risking their lives, their health and their future fertility, while being told that it's a safe procedure they need for their health….
“…What can be the motivation to lobby so strongly for such a dangerous procedure when there are other late term abortion procedures available that would have been untouched by the legislation? This is the only procedure that guarantees a dead baby with intact body parts, potentially of use in fetal research… Are women being exploited for sake of furthering fetal research?
“Are women being exploited for sake of furthering fetal research? Whether or not this was part of the motivation, women are being exploited for the financial and political gains of others when they are subjected to this procedure.”
posted on March 15, 2001 09:15:22 AM new
mzalez wrote:
What does the American Medical Association (AMA) say about partial-birth abortions?
"Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method." (The AMA supported the federal ban on partial-birth abortions passed by Congress and vetoed by President Clinton.) --Daniel H. Johnson, Jr., M.D.
Letter to the Editor
The New York Times, May 26, 1997
---------------------------------------------
If you are going to quote the AMA, let's do the whole quote, shall we?
This comes from the ACOG Statement of Policy on Intact D&X, from the website that snowyegret gave earlier:
"Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact D&X is one of the methods available in some of these situations. A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D&X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision-making is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous."
I get really peeved about selective quoting.
[ edited by mivona on Mar 15, 2001 09:16 AM ]
[ edited by mivona on Mar 15, 2001 09:17 AM ]
posted on March 15, 2001 09:17:35 AM new
hi Lisa, if the mother's life is seriously threatened, she would have induced labor or a C-section, not a PBA.
toke, look up the articles or people cited. I didn't post a link because I'm using MS Word again to hold the items found. That's why the citations are provided.
I find it paricularly interesting that you include this statement:
""With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure's impact on a woman's cervix can put future pregnancies at risk." --Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D.Letter to the Editor The New York Times, September 26, 1996"
when you yourself in another current thread here claim to be unwilling to register with the New York Times in order to read their stories.
And you now challenge any and all to go to the sources to confirm what you yourself by your own statement could not have read?
I submit that your only sources are those provided you by biased third parties who may have, as you may have, editorialized in order to better further this cause which you present.
posted on March 15, 2001 09:23:08 AM new
A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said that they could not show any circumstance where the D&X would be the only option to save life or preserve health...however, they also said "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."
posted on March 15, 2001 09:26:53 AM new
Outrage: The Price of Clinton's Veto (in addition to the lives lost...)
Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion bill is not news. However, the reaction to the president's cruel and calculated political move has not been publicized as widely. The following is a brief summary of much of the fallout after the veto.
All eight American Cardinals signed a letter to Clinton denouncing his action.
Thirty major churches signed a joint statement against the veto.
Paul Weyrich, head of the Political NewsTalk Network, "The stain of blood on the body politic from this hideous, cowardly decision of Bill Clinton will not go away...."
James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, expressed outrage on his widely heard radio program, "The blood of these tiny infants will be on Mr. Clinton's hands."
Rev. A.L. Barry, president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, wrote to Clinton condemning the veto.
Pope John Paul II criticized Clinton's veto in an unusually strongly worded statement, reserved in the past for only four other heads of state, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro.
Rev. Billy Graham, told Clinton he was "dead wrong" to veto the partial-birth abortion bill.
The Hibernians, an Irish Catholic organization with over 100,000 members, rescinded their invitation to Clinton to speak at their annual meeting.
Gary Bauer of Family Research Council and Beverly LaHaye with Concerned Women for America also weighed in against Clinton's veto. Each is a major pro-life, pro-family organization with a wide following.
Former presidential candidate, Steve Forbes, wrote that the veto was, "....unconscionable - politics at its worst....its stomach-churning....to see the President of the United States so devoid of any genuine moral sense and fiber."
Ralph Reed, with the Christian Coalition, stated that it would be almost impossible for Clinton to expect the votes of Catholics and Evangelicals in the November election.
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops is distributing millions of flyers to Catholic churches nationwide to educate churchgoers on the partial birth abortion method. The brochure urges Catholics to contact their congressmen and senators, and ask them to vote to override Clinton's veto.
1.5 million readers of Columbia Magazine, the official publication of the Knights of Columbus, read the following headline, "Brain-Sucking Monsters Attack Children!"
The Wall Street Journal said, "No one would think of doing this to another human being, even the Unabomber, but the President of the US stands four-square for doing it to babies still in the womb nearing birth."
Rush Limbaugh and other well-known conservative talk show hosts condemned the president's actions to millions of listeners.
The Archdiocese of St. Louis, discouraged students from attending a speech by Clinton. Six Catholic schools were invited to attend, but vicar general Monsignor Joseph Naumann said, "It would be an erroneous message if we'd see the president with all these kids in Catholic uniforms."
Senators in Chile passed a resolution urging the US Congress to override Clinton's partial-birth abortion veto. It was signed by 40 of Chile's 46 senators.
posted on March 15, 2001 09:29:08 AM new
krs, search on Koop, then. I sure you know how to research. If you think what's being posted is biased, then post something to challenge it with the criteria you demand.
The truth is, there is no reason PBA needs to be done.
posted on March 15, 2001 09:33:15 AM new
Ooops, didn't see Mivona's post up there. ^^^ Oh well, it bears repeating.
Apparently some disagree that a C-section or hysterectomy are better choices. Quite frankly, I'd rather have that decision being made by my doctor than by you.
Lisa
